Nikon mirrorless definitely on the way

woof woof said:
After all this hype and drama the camera had better be good. Not that it'll matter to some who'll just buy it regardless, ditto whatever Canon announce :D
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see how it compares to Sony offerings spec and price wise, but like you say some people will buy it regardless.

Going to be interesting to see what Canon bring out also and then see how Sony reacts. I bet they have something waiting in the wings to reveal once Nikon and Canon show there hands.
 
ian-83 said:
It'll be interesting to see how it compares to Sony offerings spec and price wise, but like you say some people will buy it regardless.

Going to be interesting to see what Canon bring out also and then see how Sony reacts. I bet they have something waiting in the wings to reveal once Nikon and Canon show there hands.
Click to expand...

Probably just the A7SIII tbh. I can't imagine anything else right now. the rest of the bodies are pretty new.
I reckon sony will already have a good idea of what Nikon and canon may come out with.
 
Last edited:
ian-83 said:
It'll be interesting to see how it compares to Sony offerings spec and price wise, but like you say some people will buy it regardless.

Going to be interesting to see what Canon bring out also and then see how Sony reacts. I bet they have something waiting in the wings to reveal once Nikon and Canon show there hands.
Click to expand...
Do manufacturers really do this, or do they just bring out the best they have at the time (obviously still developing other tech in the meantime)?
 
woof woof said:
After all this hype and drama the camera had better be good. Not that it'll matter to some who'll just buy it regardless, ditto whatever Canon announce :D
Click to expand...
And some who will slate it regardless. :D :D
 
snerkler said:
Do manufacturers really do this, or do they just bring out the best they have at the time (obviously still developing other tech in the meantime)?
Click to expand...

i think sony will have decent idea of what nikon and canon may be up to. They predicted both would have a mirrorless offering by next year and still brought out the A7III.
I seriously doubt either will do anything revolutionary that'll be massively better than what Sony can do. And Sony probably released the A7III to aggressively capture as many users from other brands as possible before they got their own mirrorless. Once someone has newly switched they are less likely to immediately switch back at least for financial reasons.
 
nandbytes said:
i think sony will have decent idea of what nikon and canon may be up to. They predicted both would have a mirrorless offering by next year and still brought out the A7III.
I seriously doubt either will do anything revolutionary that'll be massively better than what Sony can do. And Sony probably released the A7III to aggressively capture as many users from other brands as possible before they got their own mirrorless. Once someone has newly switched they are less likely to immediately switch back at least for financial reasons.
Click to expand...

I think they definitely did this even though its killed a lot of A9 sales. Its basically an A9 for very little money and it was designed to get as many users to buy into the system before the other brands came along.
 
redhed17 said:
'I' think the Nikon mirrorless camera will be a similar size to the D7500, and you can see how that compares to the a7III here.
Click to expand...

That’s fine by me!! It will be narrower though.
 
johnnypanic said:
Is that not a dial, at the top right, on the back of the camera?
Click to expand...
Exp comp dial according to previous mock ups but really needs to be a control dial imo.
 
frod said:
oh goody, we're going to be plagued by pictures with even more overdone thin DoF than we get now.

"it's my style" etc.
Click to expand...

My thoughts precisely .... sure it can't be a good image unless nothing bar the 3rd eye lash on the left eye is in focus don't ya know!? :rolleyes: I really am gettig sick of the bokeh whores.
 
Cagey75 said:
My thoughts precisely .... sure it can't be a good image unless nothing bar the 3rd eye lash on the left eye is in focus don't ya know!? :rolleyes: I really am gettig sick of the bokeh whores.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, fashions change - look forward to "anything not sharp from 0.25m to ∞ is not using Science and Physics to its full potential"
 
Riz_Guru said:
Hopefully it's not too late.... I actually prefer Nikon as a brand over Sony, it has a lot more history.
I can't wait to see what Nikon bring out....... if its a Sony A9 beating body with their existing lens mount, it could be a winner.
Click to expand...
Sony have a great deal of history too having previously been Minolta and carried over the use of Minolta's A mount lenses. Minolta created the first mainstream SLR camera combining inbuilt autofocus and motorised film drive, among many other firsts in the history of photography. http://www.friedmanarchives.com/Writings/A_History_of_Minolta_Innovation/index.htm
 
Ed Sutton said:
And some who will slate it regardless. :D :D
Click to expand...

Well, just in case you think I would... I wouldn't :D I owned a Nikon SLR for a long time and the only camera I've owned for longer is my Kodak Instamatic which I got for my 10th Birthday :D

Kit wise I'd like to buy British (my Kodak was Made In England :D) to keep people like me employed but as all these companies are far eastern it's difficult for me to think of a reason why I should care who makes what so I just don't worry about it. I doubt I'll buy this new Nikon though as I think it'll be priced rather high and my lowly A7 does everything I want it to at the mo :D
 
woof woof said:
I sometimes just use f8 (or f4 with MFT) and it's a liberating experience not to have to worry about those eyelashes :D but today I took pictures at f18 and f22 with my f1.2 lens :D and actually f22 just wasn't enough.
Click to expand...
Even more liberating using auto,yes I know you don’t know how :ROFLMAO:
 
Cagey75 said:
Didn't Sony just buy the company once it was already well established?
Click to expand...
Yes, but in buying Minolta they took over Minolta staff and equipment, and continued established Minolta traditions. They were not photographic novices before buying Minolta, however. Sony had already established a pioneering presence of its own in digital photography.
 
May have changed but in January Canon were leading mirrorless sales which to me says a lot about brand loyalty. Will be interesting too see where Nikon slot in.

This is based on the below though:

These numbers represent the Japan camera market, using about 50% of the sales data out of Japan. While Japanese market numbers are typically a good indicator of worldwide market, mirrorless numbers are often very different in the Asian market, where the technology caught on much faster than in Europe and the Americas.
 
chuckles said:
Don't worry, fashions change - look forward to "anything not sharp from 0.25m to ∞ is not using Science and Physics to its full potential"
Click to expand...
Cagey75 said:
Was that not the 60's? [emoji38] The old F8 and be there crew. They were well ahead of their time!
Click to expand...
No, it was the 1930s and the Group f/64 (Ansel Adams etc). They didn't talk about Science and Physics specifically, but they did promote the idea of capturing images of natural subjects with everything in the frame precisely sharp and in focus.

"f/8 and be there" is attributed to Arthur Fellig aka "Weegee", who was a photojournalist and street photographer in New York in the 30s and 40s. It's a philosophy that says camera settings don't really matter, f/8 will get you usable images (in his context/genre), but the most important thing is to be in the right place at the right time.
 
StewartR said:
No, it was the 1930s and the Group f/64 (Ansel Adams etc). They didn't talk about Science and Physics specifically, but they did promote the idea of capturing images of natural subjects with everything in the frame precisely sharp and in focus.

"f/8 and be there" is attributed to Arthur Fellig aka "Weegee", who was a photojournalist and street photographer in New York in the 30s and 40s. It's a philosophy that says camera settings don't really matter, f/8 will get you usable images (in his context/genre), but the most important thing is to be in the right place at the right time.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that Adams regretted shooting at small apertures for one picture at least although I forget which one. He later came to think that the picture would have been better if it looked as the eye would see it with the far distance less sharp than the foreground. Maybe someone will Google and find the quote.

I know we're getting off track here but I think there's a lot to be said against the current tendency towards minimum depth. I like thin depth too but I do think it's done to death and that (IMVHO) many picture we see on line would be better with more depth.

A favourite read of mine on this subject...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html

I do wonder if the current trend for zero depth street and portrait photography will come to be seen as a bit naff.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I read somewhere that Adams regretted shooting at small apertures for one picture at least although I forget which one. He later came to think that the picture would have been better if it looked as the eye would see it with the far distance less sharp than the foreground. Maybe someone will Google and find the quote.

I know we're getting off track here but I think there's a lot to be said against the current tendency towards minimum depth. I like thin depth too but I do think it's done to death and that (IMVHO) many picture we see on line would be better with more depth.

A favourite read of mine on this subject...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html

I do wonder if the current trend for zero depth street and portrait photography will come to be seen as a bit naff.
Click to expand...

I know it wasn't you that brought it up but it's worth mentioning that fast lenses aren't just about shallow depth of field.
 
gad-westy said:
I know it wasn't you that brought it up but it's worth mentioning that fast lenses aren't just about shallow depth of field.
Click to expand...

No, they're not but sometimes they have optical compromises which lead them to not being the best lenses for stopped down use. Hopefully this new Nikon lens will be a good lens and not just a one trick pony.

I can't see it being cheap though :D
 
gad-westy said:
I know it wasn't you that brought it up but it's worth mentioning that fast lenses aren't just about shallow depth of field.
Click to expand...

No - I own lots of fast lenses and use them stopped down - they tend to be optically superior stopped down and have better edge to edge sharpness - which is vital for landscapes. A lot is talked about front to back sharpness in landscapes but rarely side to side sharpness is considered and fast expensive primes tend to do well in this regard.
 
StewartR said:
No, it was the 1930s and the Group f/64 (Ansel Adams etc). They didn't talk about Science and Physics specifically, but they did promote the idea of capturing images of natural subjects with everything in the frame precisely sharp and in focus.

"f/8 and be there" is attributed to Arthur Fellig aka "Weegee", who was a photojournalist and street photographer in New York in the 30s and 40s. It's a philosophy that says camera settings don't really matter, f/8 will get you usable images (in his context/genre), but the most important thing is to be in the right place at the right time.
Click to expand...

I could have googled it but the point was more general than historical . Learn something new though . . . :)

Point was those guys weren't stressing over 'bokeh' or add on features, they certainly weren't aiming the camera more at themselves than the world they wished to capture and share. They went out and used the crap out of their gear instead of moaning about it from their bedrooms
 
Last edited:
SFTPhotography said:
No - I own lots of fast lenses and use them stopped down - they tend to be optically superior stopped down and have better edge to edge sharpness - which is vital for landscapes. A lot is talked about front to back sharpness in landscapes but rarely side to side sharpness is considered and fast expensive primes tend to do well in this regard.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Was also thinking in terms of astro. I've personally never tried this but many like to stitch milkyway shots using longer lenses than you might expect, things like 35mm and 50mm etc. But the problem with doing that is that you tend to then be magnifying star movement so you need shorter exposures and therefore higher ISO. A nice sharp F/1 lens (I can dream) would be great for this.

Not only that but if you shoot something like a 50mm 1.4 lens wide open at a subject that is 20 foot away say, the depth of field is not actually that shallow and chances are much of the image will be defined enough to show context whilst clearly isolating the subject. I think people just associate these lenses with head shots from 3 feet away where there is no context at all visible. That's a neat trick too but it's not the only one. Nice to have the option!
 
We know fast lenses are about a lot more than bokeh, but it's bokeh that the kids are crying out for. Most of them just want to blur the crap out of their messy bedrooms when vlogging about their lens being able to do so
 
SFTPhotography said:
No - I own lots of fast lenses and use them stopped down - they tend to be optically superior stopped down and have better edge to edge sharpness - which is vital for landscapes. A lot is talked about front to back sharpness in landscapes but rarely side to side sharpness is considered and fast expensive primes tend to do well in this regard.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons I moved away from Nikon was the poor 16-35 and 17-35 performance. I have seen a few people moving to the 20mm 1.8 and selling their 16-35s.
 
Dave Semmens said:
One of the reasons I moved away from Nikon was the poor 16-35 and 17-35 performance. I have seen a few people moving to the 20mm 1.8 and selling their 16-35s.
Click to expand...

I am one of them. I have the 20mm 1.8 and it is just so much better than the 16-35 it is unreal. I have the Sigma 24MM art which is a joy too and has far better centre to side performance with more uniform shaprness accross the entire frame. Not perfect, but as good as it gets for 24mm for now :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top